1 Rule 10 (Court of Appeals). Memorandum Opinion . -- (b) The Court , with

concurrence of all judges pa rticipating in the case, may affirm, reverse or modify the actions of the trial court by memora ndum opinion when a formal opinion would have no precedential value. When a case is decided by memorandum opinion it shall be designated “MEMORANDUM OPINI ON,” shall not be published, and shall not be cited or relied on for any reason in a subsequent unrelated case.

2 The tenth case is not the subject of this appeal as appare ntly the defenda

nt did not object to the right to take and possession was granted. 1 

# FILED Au gust 27, 1997 Cecil W. Crowson Ap pellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF AP PEALS OF

TENNESSEE, WESTE RN SECTION AT NASHVILL E

_______________________________________________________ ) UNITED CITIES GAS COMPANY , ) Rutherford County Circuit Court ) No. 24096 Plaintiff

/Appella nt. ) ) C. A. No. 01A01-9611-CV-00528 VS. ) ) HON . R OBE RT E. C ORLE W, III ROBERT J. SU

DDAR TH and wife , ) CHANCELL OR MARY M. SUDDARTH, et al , ) ) DISMISSED A ND REMAN DED Defend ants/Appe

llees. )

) OPINI ON FIL

ED: William K. Lanes, III , DANCE, D ANCE & L ANE, Nas hville, fo

r Plaintif f/Appell ant. Richard F . LaRoche , Murfreesboro, Granvill e S. R. Bouldi n , Murfreesboro, f or Defe ndants/Ap

pellees .

______________________________________________________________________________ MEMORAN

DUM OP

INION 1

______________________________________________________________________________ FARMER, J. This is an interlocutory appe al granted pursuant to Rule 9 T.R.A.P. United Cities Gas Company (United) filed a total of ten petitions in the court below wherein it sought to exercise the power of emine nt domain to

acquire a perma nen t easement in Defendants’ lands, said easement being necess ar y in order

to constr uct a pipe line par allel and adjace nt to the ri ght-of

-way of State Highway 99. I mmediate possessio n of the property wa s requested. The defendant landowners timely filed notice of objection to the taking. I mmediate possession was denied. Nine of the cases were subsequently consolidated by the trial court. 2 A motion for writ of inquiry was filed by United. The tria l court ru led that p ossession

may be delive red, if a t all, only upon conc lusion of th

e suit.2 The trial court entered an order April 24, 199 6, impaneling a jury of view and directing it:
[T]o receive evidence and to g o upon the lands of Def endants t o determine wh at , i f a ny, portion thereof itis necessary to condemn for the proje ct desc ribed in th e Petition, and should

the Jury of In quest determine th at it is ne ce ss ar y t o c ondemn any such lands, to lay off the same by m etes and bounds.
It is the position o f United that the jury of view has no authority to make a determination different from the condemning authority ’s opinion as to the amount of land needed in the takin g and th at the jur y’ s only responsi bility is to assess dam ages. It is the position of the landowners that

the trial court was correct and that it falls wit

hin the pr ovince of the jury of view to also determine the amount of land required to be taken.

The order of this Court granting the interlocutor y appea l provided that
It is further ordered that the issues on appeal shall be limited to the scope of the authority of a jury of v

i ew. The p arties should spec ifically

address whether and under what circ umstances Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-113 permits a jury of view to differ

with a condemning gas pipeline company’s determination of the amount of property needed for the project. T.C.A. § 29 -16-113( a) provi des that:
Th e jury will then p

roceed to examine t

he ground, and ma y hea r te st im on y, but no argument of counsel, and set apart , b y metes and bounds, a sufficient quantity of land forthe purposes intended, and as se ss th e d am ag es oc ca si on ed to th e o wn er th er eb y.
The landow ners’ br

ief file d in this ca

use state s that the l aying of th e pipeli n e proceeded

durin g the pe ndenc y of the pr oceedi ngs below and was success fully placed s o that it did nothave to

encroa ch upon the land of

at least s ome of the

defenda nt landow ners. At oral argument before this Court on the interlocutory a ppeal, counsel for all of the parties conceded that the pipeline has been fully installed, wa s placed entirely within the highway

right-of-way

and does not encroach upon any of these landowne

rs. Howeve

r, counse l for Unit ed insiste d that this Court rule on the issue3

presented on appea l becaus e of the p ossibility that the Sta

te might r equire t he pipeli ne to be removed from the right-of-w ay

at some tim

e in the future, which would require replacing the pipeline upon a portion of

the lando wners’ p

roperty . This fact was not included in the Rule 9 application for an interlocutory

appeal. It appears to t his Court that this is pure speculation at this point. It further appears that this is sue would not becom

e justiciable until such time that a taking of a portion of the landowne rs’ property is requested. This may neve r occur. Acase will generally be considered moot if it no longer serves as a means to provide re lief to the pre vailing party . Judicial e conomy

prompts us to avoid rendering advisory opinions or deciding abstract legal questions . McIntyre v. Traughber , 884 S.W.2d 134, 137 (Tenn. App. 1994 ) . It r esults tha t this inter

locutory appeal i s dismissed and this cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Costs of this appeal are taxed to United Cities Ga s Company, for which e xecution ma y is su e i f n ec es sa ry.

____________________________________ FAR MER , J.

______________________________ CRAWFORD, P.J., W.S. (Conc urs)

______________________________ LI LL ARD, J. (Conc

urs)